Senior Law Clerk
Florida appellate practitioners know the temptation: a trial court enters an amended final judgment, and the losing party tries to use that new rendition date to challenge issues that existed in (and were apparent from) the original final judgment. The Third District recently reinforced why that strategy usually fails—and why it is often a jurisdictional dead end.
In Fletcher v. Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, the Third DCA dismissed an appeal from an Agreed Amended Final Judgment of Foreclosure because the appellants’ arguments targeted alleged defects in the original final judgment (and the underlying summary judgment ruling), not the amended portion of the judgment.
The setup: an amended foreclosure judgment, but the appeal attacked the original issues
The case arose from a foreclosure action. The trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on July 16, 2024, and later entered an Agreed Amended Final Judgment on July 25, 2024.
The Third DCA issued an order to show cause in November 2025, directing the appellants to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—pointing them to DeGale v. Krongold, Bass & Todd, where an appeal from an amended order was dismissed as untimely when the issues raised were “directed solely” at alleged errors in the original order.
The appellants responded by arguing the amendment was “material,” so the appellate clock should run from the amended judgment’s date.
The court’s key point: “material amendment” isn’t the whole inquiry.
Even assuming the amended judgment materially modified the original, the Third DCA emphasized the rule that controls jurisdiction:
An appeal from an amended judgment (even a materially amended one) is limited to the amended portions and does not “call up for review errors in the original.”
The court relied on multiple Florida authorities making the same point, including:
- Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1st DCA) (appeal allowed from materially amended judgment, but review limited to amended portions)
- Dawson v. Hernandez (4th DCA) (same principle)
- St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry (Florida Supreme Court) (whether the second order substantively changed the first is immaterial if the party only challenges errors in the first)
- DeGale and Sitaram (amendment does not “revive” the time to appeal issues from the original order)
Why Fletcher lost jurisdiction: the amendment didn’t match the issues raised.
On the merits of jurisdiction, the amended foreclosure judgment “mirror[ed]” the original in all respects except for one change: it removed an additional property from the list of properties to be sold at the judicial sale.
But the appellants’ challenge did not address that removal. Instead, they attacked alleged errors traceable to the original final judgment—specifically, the prior January 30, 2024 summary judgment order rejecting their affirmative defenses.
That mismatch is the ballgame: because the appeal sought review of original issues (not the amended portion), the Third DCA held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed.
Practical takeaways for Florida trial and appellate lawyers
1) Don’t confuse “new rendition date” with “new issues for review”.
A materially amended final judgment may restart the appeal window only as to the amendment—not as to previously reviewable rulings.
2) Always map your appellate issues to the amendment.
If your notice of appeal is from an amended final judgment, your briefing needs a clean through-line showing how your issues arise from, or are affected by, the amended language—not simply that the judgment was re-entered.
3) If you want to challenge the original judgment, treat the deadline as unforgiving.
If the problem is in the original judgment (or in an underlying order incorporated into it), file the appeal timely from the original rendition date. A later amendment is not a “second bite” at those issues.
4) Agreed amendments can be especially perilous on appeal.
In Fletcher, the amended judgment was “Agreed.” When the only change is something like removing property from a sale list, an appellant who wants to litigate earlier summary judgment rulings is likely headed for dismissal unless the appeal was timely as to the original judgment.
Bottom Line
Fletcher is a straightforward reminder of a rule that is easy to overlook in practice: an appeal from an amended final judgment is not a vehicle to resurrect challenges to the original judgment. If you’re not attacking the amended portion, you may not have an appeal at all.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.